# Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

```Edgar,

I realized there is another problem.  It is not just that we don't what Sam
is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not proceed in an
orderly or logical manner.```
```
>From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri
happens *before
*Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, Pam reaching Proxima
Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!

If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see no
what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...

Jason

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> I said I don't know because SR doesn't know. What's wrong with that? It's
>> consistent with SR.
>>
>
> Nothing is wrong with that position, I just thought P-time might offer an
> answer to this problem which exists in SR.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know WHAT Sam is doing at any particular moment in the shared
>> present moment, but I know he exists and is doing something. What's wrong
>> with that? If I had a mathematical way to determine that I'd certainly let
>> you know but as far as I know there isn't any. We just have to accept the
>> fact that everything isn't mathematical. Consciousness and the present
>> moment are examples. Clocks don't measure P-time. There is no P-time clock
>> that reads P-time. We know we are in the same present moment P-time not but
>> having synchronized clocks but by shaking hands and comparing clocks, and
>> by just living our lives and communicating like we always did whether our
>> clocks are the same or not.
>>
>> There is no clock that displays P-time. However everything is logical,
>> and I've given the logical reasoning...
>>
>
> What does P-time predict or allow us to explain that special relativity
> does not or cannot?
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:30:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liz,
>>>>
>>>> We'll let Jason judge whether I answered him or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> what was whatever relativity predicts, but relativity also has no answer
>>> without a defined reference frame).
>>>
>>> However according to P-time, Sam must be doing *something *at the exact
>>> moment Pam arrives at her destination. Is that something celebrating his
>>> fifth birthday or not?
>>>
>>> If there is some certain thing he is doing at that instant (which I
>>> think follows from P-time), your P-time theory ought to have some
>>> mathematical way of providing an answer that question, should it not? If it
>>> does not, then what is the advantage of P-time over special relativity?
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 4:14:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3 January 2014 10:00, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I answered Jason directly. See that post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no preferred CLOCK time frame. There is a shared common
>>>>>> present moment they both share which is 'preferred' in that sense. Again
>>>>>> you are confusing clock time and Present moment time. See my response to
>>>>>> Jason for one more approach that might make it understandable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is preferred in the sense that it defines an inertial frame. From
>>>>> what you have said so far that frame is the Earth's rest frame (or let's
>>>>> say the rest frame of the CMB, which seems more physically plausible -
>>>>> they
>>>>> are fairly close from the point of view of relativistic travel). Saying
>>>>> that a frame of reference is special - e.g. that it computes reality -
>>>>> should have observable consequences, probably for dispersion in high
>>>>> energy
>>>>> cosmic rays. Have you worked out what those are, so they can be tested
>>>>> experimentally? So far your theory appears to be just words, and from the
>>>>> response you've had so far, not very convincing ones. It needs a
>>>>> mathematical underpinning, as I requested way back but haven't yet seen,
>>>>> before it can really be called a theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or if you prefer to stick with just words, please try to show some
>>>>> reason, any reason, for anyone to think that P-time actually exists and
>>>>> does some useful work in explaining reality. Just saying it's "obvious",
>>>>> and "no one understands you" isn't enough (well, not unless you're a
>>>>> teenager, at least.)
>>>>>
>>>>> See everyone's responses to your posts, but especially Jason's, for
>>>>> any number of approaches that might make this understandable.
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email